IQM vs. TIME

Last updated Aug 4, 2026

IQM (Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF) and TIME (Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF) are both Technology Equities funds. Both are actively managed. Over the past year, IQM returned 34.87% vs 17.48% for TIME. Their correlation of 0.80 means they have usually moved in the same direction. IQM charges 0.50%/yr vs 1.00%/yr for TIME.

Performance

IQM vs. TIME - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a $10,000 investment in Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF (TIME). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, IQM achieves a 19.53% return, which is significantly higher than TIME's 7.94% return.

IQM

• 1D: 1.95%
• 1M: -6.41%
• 6M: 13.56%
• YTD: 19.53%
• 1Y: 34.87%
• 3Y*: 30.20%
• 5Y*: 15.99%
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 25.29%

TIME

• 1D: 1.18%
• 1M: 1.28%
• 6M: 7.90%
• YTD: 7.94%
• 1Y: 17.48%
• 3Y*: —
• 5Y*: —
• 10Y*: —
• ALL TIME*: 11.58%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

Liquidity Comparison

Position	Avg. Volume Value (2W)	Avg. Volume Value (1M)	Avg. Volume Value (3M)
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	$905.23K	$711.02K	$931.48K
TIME Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF	$51.24K	$43.99K	$100.40K

IQM vs. TIME - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	19.53%	30.76%	5.35%
TIME Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF	7.94%	10.17%	5.94%

Correlation

The correlation between IQM and TIME is 0.80, which is moderate. They have sometimes moved together and sometimes differently, sharing some price drivers without tracking each other closely.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Focuses on recent behavior, but can change the most.	0.80
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Jun 24, 2024	0.80

The correlation between IQM and TIME has been stable across timeframes, ranging from 0.80 to 0.80 - a consistent structural relationship.

IQM vs. TIME - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	IQM	TIME
Technology	70.5%	45.5%
Industrials	14.8%	5.3%
Utilities	3.5%	1.6%
Energy	3.1%	6.8%
Consumer Cyclical	2.7%	6.1%
Communication Services	1.1%	15.6%
Healthcare	1.0%	6.8%
Basic Materials	-	3.3%
Consumer Defensive	-	5.5%
Financial Services	-	3.6%
Real Estate	-	-

Return for Risk

IQM vs. TIME — Risk / Return Rank

Compare historical risk-adjusted metric ranks over the past 12 months.

IQM

IQM Risk / Return Rank: 39
IQM Sharpe Ratio Rank: 38
IQM Sortino Ratio Rank: 37
IQM Omega Ratio Rank: 38
IQM Calmar Ratio Rank: 38
IQM Martin Ratio Rank: 45

TIME

TIME Risk / Return Rank: 44
TIME Sharpe Ratio Rank: 48
TIME Sortino Ratio Rank: 46
TIME Omega Ratio Rank: 45
TIME Calmar Ratio Rank: 37
TIME Martin Ratio Rank: 41

The rank (0–100) uses a weighted average of the Sharpe, Sortino, Omega, Calmar, and Martin percentile ranks for the trailing 12 months. Higher means stronger historical risk-adjusted performance within the peer group.

IQM vs. TIME - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) and Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF (TIME). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

Values are calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. Risk-adjusted metrics are more stable over longer periods — use the period switch above to explore them.

	IQM	TIME	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	0.97	1.23	-0.26
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	1.42	1.71	-0.29
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.19	1.22	-0.03
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	1.39	1.34	+0.04
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	5.25	4.58	+0.67

IQM vs. TIME - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current IQM Sharpe Ratio is 0.97, which is comparable to the TIME Sharpe Ratio of 1.23. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of IQM and TIME, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Drawdowns

IQM vs. TIME - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum IQM drawdown since its inception was -44.91%, which is greater than TIME's maximum drawdown of -24.26%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for IQM and TIME.

Drawdown Indicators

	IQM	TIME	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-44.91%	-24.26%	-20.65%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-25.28%	-13.09%	-12.19%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-30.42%	—	—
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-44.91%	—	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-17.03%	-2.43%	-14.60%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-12.20%	-5.44%	-6.76%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	6.66%	3.83%	+2.83%

Volatility

IQM vs. TIME - Volatility Comparison

Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF (IQM) has a higher volatility of 15.54% compared to Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF (TIME) at 4.07%. This indicates that IQM's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than TIME based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	IQM	TIME	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	15.54%	4.07%	+11.47%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	31.13%	11.18%	+19.95%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	36.17%	14.25%	+21.92%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	30.64%	17.55%	+13.09%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	31.69%	17.55%	+14.14%

IQM vs. TIME - Expense Ratio Comparison

IQM has a 0.50% expense ratio, which is lower than TIME's 1.00% expense ratio.

Dividends

IQM vs. TIME - Dividend Comparison

IQM has not paid dividends to shareholders, while TIME's dividend yield for the trailing twelve months is around 9.28%.

Position	TTM	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
IQM Franklin Intelligent Machines ETF	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.17%	0.01%
TIME Clockwise U.S. Core Equity ETF	9.28%	10.02%	15.84%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both IQM and TIME in my portfolio?

IQM and TIME have a correlation of 0.80, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which is riskier, IQM or TIME?

IQM has higher volatility (15.54%) compared to TIME (4.07%). In terms of maximum drawdown, IQM dropped -44.91% vs TIME's -24.26%.

Which ETF is better, IQM or TIME?

On 1-year performance, IQM leads with 34.87% vs 17.48% for TIME. On fees, IQM is cheaper at 0.50% per year. On volatility, TIME has been the lower-risk option at 4.07%. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF has performed better, IQM or TIME?

Over the 1-year period, IQM has performed better with a 34.87% return vs 17.48%. Past performance does not guarantee future results, so compare this with risk, fees, and fund exposure.

Which ETF is cheaper, IQM or TIME?

IQM is cheaper with a 0.50% expense ratio, compared with 1.00% for TIME.

Which ETF pays a higher dividend yield, IQM or TIME?

TIME has the higher dividend yield at 9.28%, compared with 0.00% for IQM.

What is the main difference between IQM and TIME?

They also come from different issuers: Franklin Templeton and Clockwise. Their fees differ too: 0.50% for IQM and 1.00% for TIME.

Which has better risk-adjusted returns?

TIME currently has the higher Sharpe Ratio (1.23 vs 0.97), meaning it's delivered slightly more return per unit of risk over the trailing 12 months. However, this ranking shifts over time - use the Risk/Return Score above for a more comprehensive view that combines Sharpe, Sortino, and other measures used by quantitative funds.